If anything, I would think that we would understate civilian deaths. But the
question still stands: At what point does a military attack become terrorist?
-----Original Message-----
From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 2:05 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Definition of terrorism(WAS The politicization of the Iraq War
do we know this for a fact? Not trying to start a flame here, but...
isn't the consensus that our intelligence in this area really sucks?
Dana
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 11:02:02 -0500, G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree that the target of the violence is a huge factor in determining
> terrorism.
>
> I don't agree though, that you can make a clean break in the case of Iraq.
> The groups that are attacking the US are the same groups that are killing
> Iraqi civilians, beheading journalists, and blowing up police stations. A
> bomb that kills 10 Iraqi civilians, and 1 US soldier....is considered
> "acceptable loss" by these groups.
>
> On a side note, it's kind of a shame that this Iraq mess seems to be
> overshadowing some amazing developments in Afghanistan.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Marlon Moyer
> To: CF-Community
> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 10:51 AM
> Subject: Re: Definition of terrorism(WAS The politicization of the Iraq
> War
>
> I think the winner/loser slant is really what defines terrorism.
> Afterall, George Washington and his army fighting for self defense,
> their motive was purely political. They didn't stick to fighting the
> traditional/British way but chose to adopt Indian strategies. If we
> accept Gruss's definition, we become a nation founded on terrorism.
>
> Regardless, I think that the parts of the insurgency that are
> attacking only military targets and not civilians are not terrorists.
> The part that is attacking civilians would be considered terrorists by
> me.
>
> <snip>________________________________
>
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
